Many large businesses started as family businesses. Parents build the business, their children later help develop it, and ultimately the business is expected to continue from one generation to the next. However, one issue often receives attention only after the business has grown: who actually owns the family business’s Trademark? Is the Trademark registered under the name of the father or mother as the founder? Is it jointly owned by several family members? Or is it registered under the name of a company whose shares are owned by the family? This may appear to be merely an administrative matter, but the answer can have significant consequences when the business passes to the next generation, the composition of the family changes, the company brings in investors, or one of the owners passes away. Interestingly, there is not always one ownership structure that can be regarded as the most appropriate. For a family business, there are at least three Trademark ownership options that may be considered, each with its own characteristics, advantages, and consequences. Regardless of the Option: A Trademark Is an Asset A Trademark is not merely a name displayed on a storefront, product packaging, or social media account. Once registered, its owner obtains a Trademark Right, namely the exclusive right to use the Trademark or to authorize another party to use it. Minister of Law Regulation No. 5 of 2026 concerning Trademark Registration also confirms that a Trademark Applicant may be an individual or a legal entity. This means that, from the outset, a family business has a choice as to who should be designated as the owner of its Trademark. Ideally, this decision should not be based solely on the question: “Who founded this business?” It should also consider: “Who should own this Trademark in the long term?” This is where Trademark ownership planning becomes relevant. Option 1: The Trademark Is Jointly Owned by Several Family Members The first option is co-ownership, where the Trademark is owned by more than one family member. For example, a culinary business may be established jointly by a father and his two children. All three have been involved in the business from the beginning, and the family wants the Trademark to be directly owned by all three of them. Indonesian Trademark law allows such an ownership structure. Article 5 of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications regulates Trademark Applications filed by more than one Applicant who jointly holds the right to the Trademark. In such circumstances, the names of all Applicants must be stated. The Application may be signed by one Applicant with the written consent of the other Applicants. If the Application is filed through a Representative (IP Consultant), the power of attorney must be signed by all parties entitled to the Trademark. Accordingly, one Trademark may indeed be registered from the outset under the names of several family members. When Can Joint Trademark Ownership Be an Option? The best-case scenario for this structure is a family business that was genuinely established jointly by a relatively limited number of family members who intend to keep the Trademark as an asset directly owned by them together. For example, three siblings establish a business from scratch. All three are actively involved in the company, and none of them wishes to be designated as the sole owner of the Trademark. This structure provides a relatively clear representation of ownership: the Trademark genuinely belongs jointly to those family members. However, the longer the business operates, the more potential issues need to be anticipated: For this reason, joint ownership should not stop at simply listing several names on the Trademark certificate. The family should consider entering into an agreement regulating, among other things, the decision-making mechanism, use of the Trademark, Trademark maintenance and protection costs, transfer of rights, the entry and exit of family members, and the measures to be taken if one of the owners passes away. With such arrangements in place, joint ownership is less likely to become a source of uncertainty in the future. It should also be noted that co-ownership is not the same as a Collective Trademark. A Collective Trademark is a Trademark used for goods and/or services with common characteristics relating to their nature, general features, and quality, including their supervision, which are marketed jointly by several persons or legal entities in order to distinguish them from similar goods and/or services. Minister of Law Regulation No. 5 of 2026 contains separate provisions governing Collective Trademarks. Option 2: The Trademark Is Owned by the Family Company The second option is to register the Trademark under the name of a legal entity owned by the family, such as a Limited Liability Company (PT). Imagine that a family establishes PT XYZ. The father owns 50% of the shares, the mother owns 20%, while each of their two children owns 15%. All business activities are conducted through PT XYZ, and the business’s principal Trademark is also registered under the name of PT XYZ. In this scenario, it is important to distinguish between two things: A Limited Liability Company is a legal entity whose capital is divided into shares. Therefore, if the PT becomes the Applicant and subsequently the Trademark owner, the Trademark becomes an asset owned by the legal entity itself, rather than directly by the individual family members who hold shares in the company. When Can Company Ownership of the Trademark Be an Option? This structure may be suitable for a family business that already has a clear corporate structure and intends to maintain business continuity across generations. One of its main advantages is that Trademark ownership does not necessarily need to change every time the composition of the family or the company’s shareholders changes. For example: This is where a fundamental distinction arises compared with direct joint ownership by individual family members. Under this structure, the question for the future may shift from: “Who will inherit the Trademark?” to: “Who will eventually own and control the company that
商标证书在法院诉讼中的重要性及《印度尼西亚民法典》第1888条在商标证据中的适用
在知识产权争议，尤其是商标争议中，权利归属并不仅仅取决于谁认为自己是真正的权利人。一旦争议进入司法程序，相关权利必须能够通过证据加以证明。 这一点在商标无效诉讼中尤为重要。被告需要证明其商标权的法律基础，而原告同样必须具备提起诉讼所要求的适格主体资格（legal standing）。 那么，如果原告尚未在印度尼西亚取得商标注册证书，该怎么办？在其他国家取得的商标注册是否可以自动成为在印度尼西亚提起诉讼的法律依据？如果现有文件只有电子证书、扫描件或打印件，其证明力又如何？ 这些问题看似简单，但在实际诉讼中，可能直接影响法院对案件证据的认定。 尚未注册商标的原告是否具有诉讼资格？ 印度尼西亚《2016年第20号商标与地理标志法》对此作出了明确规定。 该法第76条第（2）款规定，未注册商标的所有人，在依第（1）款提起诉讼之前，应当先向部长提交商标注册申请。 这意味着，如果个人或企业认为自己的商标已被他人抢先注册，在提起商标无效诉讼之前，应当先在印度尼西亚提交商标注册申请。 在其他国家取得的商标注册，或者商标在其他国家的使用证据，仍然可以作为法院审理案件时的证据，例如用于证明商标的在先使用、声誉或权利归属历史。 但是，这些证据并不会自动取代印度尼西亚商标法所规定的程序性要求。 因此，在提起诉讼之前，就应当首先审查原告是否具备适格的诉讼资格。原本可以在诉讼前解决的问题，不应等到案件进入法院后才成为程序上的障碍。 商标权属与法院诉讼中的证据 在确认诉讼资格之后，下一项关键问题就是证据。 在商标争议中，商标注册证书是证明已注册商标权存在的重要文件之一。 然而，在法院审理过程中，可以提交的证据并不限于商标注册证书。双方还可以提交与商标权属及使用情况有关的其他文件，例如： 商标许可协议、商标使用证据、商业文件，以及商标在不同国家或地区的注册证明等。 那么，如果这些文件仅以电子文件、扫描件或打印件的形式存在，其证明力如何？ 这正是《印度尼西亚民法典》第1888条具有重要意义的地方。 原则上，该条规定，书面文件的证明力主要存在于其原件之中。副本或摘录可以作为证据使用，但其内容必须与原件一致，而法院在必要情况下可以要求当事人出示原件。 因此，在诉讼证据体系中，原始文件仍然具有重要地位。协议的扫描件或复印件，并不当然具有与原件相同的证明力。 那么，如果无法同时出示原件，电子文件或复印件是否一定会被法院拒绝？ 不一定。 在司法实践中，法官并不会只考虑原件是否存在，还会综合评估该文件与其他证据之间的关系，包括对方当事人是否承认或者否认该文件的存在及真实性。 无法出示文件原件时会怎样？ 印度尼西亚最高法院的多项判决可以说明这一问题。 在最高法院第112 K/Pdt/1996号判决中，某文件的复印件由于无法出示原件，同时也没有证人证言或者其他证据予以支持，因此被认定不能作为有效证据使用。 相比之下，在最高法院第410 K/Pdt/2004号判决中，虽然文件原件无法出示，但由于对方当事人承认该文件的存在及真实性，该复印件仍被法院接受。 类似的情况也可以见于最高法院第1498 K/Pdt/2006号判决。在特定情况下，如果有其他证据予以支持，即使是复印件的复印件，也可能被法院接受。 从上述判决可以看出，将规则简单理解为： “如果没有文件原件，复印件在法院就一定无效。” 并不准确。 原始文件仍然是最稳妥的书面证据形式。但是在特定情况下，如果文件的存在得到对方当事人承认，或者能够获得其他证据支持，文件副本仍可能被法院纳入考虑。 最终，证据是否具有证明力，仍然需要由法院结合案件整体情况进行判断。 当然，与能够在法院直接出示文件原件相比，依赖这些例外情况存在更高的诉讼风险。 因此，妥善保存原始文件不应仅被视为行政管理问题，而应被视为企业在未来可能发生争议时维护自身证据能力的重要措施。 电子商标证书又如何？ 随着知识产权行政管理逐渐数字化，知识产权文件已经不一定都以纸质形式签发。 因此，不能仅仅因为一份文件不是纸质文件，就认定其不具有证据价值。 但是，需要区分两种情况： 第一种，是文件从一开始就以电子形式正式签发； 第二种，是纸质文件经过扫描后形成的电子副本。 两者在证据认定方面存在不同的考量。 对于原本即以电子形式签发的文件，文件的认证方式、完整性、签发方或签署方的身份，以及文件签发机制等因素，都可能成为判断其真实性的重要依据。 相反，如果现有文件仅仅是纸质文件的扫描件，一旦对方当事人对文件的真实性提出异议，原始纸质文件是否存在以及是否能够出示，仍可能成为诉讼中的争议问题。 因此，数字化保存仍然非常重要，可以作为备份，并有助于企业日常管理证据和文件。 但是，数字副本并不应在所有情况下都被视为原始文件的完全替代品。 在知识产权事务中，从一开始就建立完善的文件保存制度，可以有效减少未来发生争议时可能出现的证据问题。 不仅要保护知识产权，也要保护证明知识产权的文件 注册商标、专利、工业设计以及其他知识产权固然重要。 但是，知识产权保护并不会在证书签发后自动结束。 企业还应建立完善的文件管理制度，妥善保存与知识产权有关的重要法律文件，包括合同、权利转让协议、许可协议、授权文件、重要往来函件以及相关交易文件。 具有法律意义的纸质原件应当在安全且受控的环境中保存。 与此同时，企业也可以建立数字备份，以降低文件遗失风险，并提高日常文件管理效率。 对于从一开始就通过电子方式完成的交易，企业还应采用能够支持未来举证的系统，例如能够证明： 交易双方的身份、文件的完整性、交易发生的日期和时间，以及双方完成确认或批准的过程。 如果未来相关法律关系发生争议，这些信息都可能成为重要证据。 最终，当争议真正发生时，企业需要面对的问题并不仅仅是： “我们还保存着这个文件吗？” 更重要的问题是： “我们能否证明该文件是真实的，并且确实反映了双方之间真实存在的法律关系？” 在知识产权保护中，仅仅拥有相关权利并不一定足够。 能够证明权利的归属、转让、许可、使用以及与该权利相关的法律关系，同样是全面知识产权保护战略中的重要组成部分。 换言之，保护知识产权不仅意味着保护权利本身，也意味着妥善保存那些能够证明该项权利确实属于我们，或者处于我们合法控制之下的证据。 如需进一步了解知识产权争议中的文件证据及相关法律问题，欢迎通过以下渠道联系我们，并获得15分钟免费咨询： 📩 电子邮件：[email protected] 📳 电话预约：+62 21 83793812 💬 WeChat：@AFFAIPR 关于 AFFA： AFFA 知识产权事务所成立于1999年，是一家总部位于印度尼西亚的精品知识产权律师事务所，专注为国际品牌与创新者提供全方位服务，包括申请注册、许可授权、执法维权及商业化支持，助力客户在印尼不断发展的知识产权环境中稳健发展。 本所因卓越表现广受认可，荣获 Asia Business Law Journal 颁发的“2025年度印度尼西亚最佳精品律师事务所”及“知识产权执法事务所”称号，并入选 WTR 1000 “2024年度推荐事务所（印度尼西亚）”。
The Importance of Trademark Certificates in Court Proceedings and the Role of Article 1888 of the Indonesian Civil Code in Trademark Evidence
In Intellectual Property disputes, particularly Trademark disputes, ownership is not simply a matter of who considers themselves to be the rightful owner. Once a dispute is brought before the court, the relevant rights must be capable of being proven. This is particularly important in Trademark invalidation proceedings. The Defendant must be able to establish the legal basis for its ownership, while the Plaintiff must also have the appropriate legal standing to initiate the lawsuit. But what if the Plaintiff does not yet hold a Trademark certificate in Indonesia? Can a Trademark registration obtained abroad automatically serve as a legal basis for bringing an action in Indonesia? And what if the available documents consist only of digital certificates, scanned copies, or printouts? These questions may appear straightforward, but in practice they can become decisive issues in court proceedings. Legal Standing of a Plaintiff Whose Trademark Has Not Yet Been Registered Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications addresses this issue expressly. Article 76 paragraph (2) provides that the owner of an unregistered Trademark may file a lawsuit as referred to in paragraph (1) after submitting a Trademark Application to the Minister. This means that if an individual or company believes that its Trademark has been registered earlier by another party, it must first submit an application to register the Trademark in Indonesia before filing a Trademark invalidation lawsuit. Trademark registrations obtained abroad or evidence of use in other countries may still form part of the evidence submitted before the court, for example to demonstrate prior use, reputation, or the history of ownership of the Trademark. However, such evidence does not automatically replace the requirements imposed under Indonesian Trademark law. For this reason, the issue of legal standing should be examined from the outset, before a lawsuit is filed. A matter that could have been addressed at an early stage should not be allowed to become an obstacle once the case has already entered court proceedings. Trademark Ownership and Evidence in Court Proceedings Once legal standing has been established, the next issue is evidence. In Trademark disputes, a Trademark certificate is one of the key documents used to demonstrate the existence of a registered right. However, evidence presented before the court is not necessarily limited to the Trademark certificate itself. The parties may also submit other documents relating to the ownership and use of the Trademark, including licensing agreements, evidence of use, commercial documents, and evidence of Trademark registrations in various jurisdictions. But what happens if those documents are available only in digital form, as scanned copies, or as printouts? This is where Article 1888 of the Indonesian Civil Code becomes relevant. In essence, this provision establishes that the evidentiary value of a written document rests with the original instrument. Copies or extracts may be relied upon insofar as they correspond with the original document, which may be required to be produced when necessary. Accordingly, original documents continue to play an important role in evidentiary proceedings. A scanned copy or photocopy of an agreement does not necessarily carry the same evidentiary weight as the original document. Does this mean that digital documents or photocopies unsupported by an original document will automatically be rejected by the court? Not necessarily. In judicial practice, judges do not merely consider whether the original document is available. They may also assess how the document relates to other evidence, including whether the opposing party acknowledges or disputes the existence and authenticity of that document. When the Original Document Cannot Be Produced This approach can be seen in several Supreme Court decisions. In Supreme Court Decision No. 112 K/Pdt/1996, a photocopy of a document whose original could not be produced, and which was not supported by witness testimony or other evidence, was considered inadmissible as valid evidence. By contrast, in Supreme Court Decision No. 410 K/Pdt/2004, a photocopy whose original could not be produced was accepted because the existence and authenticity of the document were acknowledged by the opposing party. A similar approach can be seen in Supreme Court Decision No. 1498 K/Pdt/2006, where, under certain circumstances, a photocopy of a photocopy could be accepted when supported by other evidentiary elements. These decisions demonstrate that the statement that “a photocopy without the original document is automatically invalid in court” is an oversimplification. Original documents remain the safest form of documentary evidence. Nevertheless, copies may, under certain circumstances, still be considered, particularly where their existence is acknowledged by the opposing party or where they are supported by other forms of evidence. Ultimately, the court’s assessment remains an important factor. Relying on such exceptions naturally carries greater risk than being able to produce the original document in court. For this reason, preserving original documents should not be regarded merely as an administrative matter. It should form part of a broader strategy for maintaining evidentiary strength in the event that a dispute arises. What About Digital Trademark Certificates? The development of digital administrative systems means that Intellectual Property documents are no longer always issued in physical form. Accordingly, a digital document cannot automatically be regarded as having no evidentiary value simply because it is not printed on paper. However, it is important to distinguish between a document that was originally issued electronically and a scanned or digital copy of a physical document. These two categories involve different evidentiary considerations. For documents that are issued electronically from the outset, factors such as authentication, document integrity, the identity of the issuing or signing party, and the mechanism through which the document was issued become relevant. By contrast, where only a scanned copy of a physical document is available, questions concerning the original may still arise if the document is challenged by the opposing party. Digital document storage therefore remains important as a backup and as part of an effective evidence management system, but it should not always be regarded as a complete substitute for an original physical document. In Intellectual Property matters, properly maintaining documents from the outset can prevent
Urgent Update: Indonesia Reinstated Article 4(f) to Disallow Patent Evergreening
On 28 August 2026, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, reinstating Article 4(f) of the Patent Law and its explanatory provisions, which Law No. 65 of 2024 had previously omitted. The decision restores the exclusion from patentability of new uses of existing or known products, including new medical indications (second medical use). It also reinstates restrictions on new forms of existing compounds that do not significantly enhance efficacy. As a practical implication, pending applications should be assessed in light of the reinstated Article 4(f), including those filed since Law No. 65 of 2024 took effect on 28 October 2024. Patents granted before the decision was pronounced are not automatically revoked. Their validity may still be challenged through the legal procedures available under the Patent Law, subject to the applicable grounds, requirements, and deadlines. We urge patent applicants who are impacted by this Constitutional Court decision to review their portfolio and assess the viability of protection in Indonesia. Should you need further information on this new Patent regulation, contact us through any of the channels below and get a FREE 15-minute consultation: 📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📳 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889 About AFFA: Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support—from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization—in Indonesia’s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including “Best Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia” and “IP Enforcement Firm” at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal, as well as being listed as a “Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia” by WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals.
商标注册证还是清真认证？应该先申请哪一个？
商标已经准备好，产品也即将上市，但企业应该先办理哪一项：商标注册、印度尼西亚食品药品监督管理局（BPOM）许可，还是清真认证（Halal Certification）？ 三者具有不同的功能，并适用不同的法律法规和要求。但从企业品牌保护的角度来看，商标注册应当优先进行，之后再根据产品类别办理印度尼西亚**食品药品监督管理局（Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan，简称 BPOM）**的相关许可及清真认证。 为什么应当优先注册商标？ 印度尼西亚实行商标**“申请在先”（first-to-file）原则。根据印度尼西亚《2016年第20号商标和地理标志法》第3条**，商标权在商标获得注册后取得。 这意味着，仅仅在产品上使用某个名称、取得产品上市许可，甚至已经取得清真认证，都不会自动赋予企业对该商标的专用权。 如果商标尚未注册，企业可能面临相当大的风险。 例如，一家公司已经在产品生产、包装、市场推广、BPOM 许可及清真认证方面投入了大量资金，之后却发现其正在使用的商标已经由其他主体注册。 在这种情况下，公司可能面临法律纠纷，甚至可能不得不更改产品名称、包装、宣传材料，以及其他使用该品牌标识的商业文件。 因此，企业最好在产品开发的早期阶段就进行商标检索并提交商标注册申请。 什么时候需要办理 BPOM 许可？ BPOM 许可与商标注册属于不同的法律和监管体系。 商标主要用于保护产品的品牌标识，而 BPOM 则负责监管特定产品的安全性、质量、功效、标签以及市场流通。 一般而言，受 BPOM 监管的产品包括： 但这并不意味着所有食品都必须取得 BPOM 注册编号。 部分食品可以免于 BPOM 注册要求，例如保质期少于七天的食品、即食食品、作为原材料使用且不直接销售给最终消费者的食品，以及符合**家庭工业加工食品生产承诺履行认证（SPP-IRT）**制度的特定产品。 与商标有关的要求也可能因产品类别而有所不同。因此，商标注册证并非在所有情况下都是申请 BPOM 注册的前提条件。 不过，产品名称或商标仍然是产品注册以及产品标签上的重要识别信息。 那么清真认证呢？ 清真认证义务并不适用于所有在印度尼西亚市场销售的商品。 根据印度尼西亚**《2024年第42号政府条例——清真产品保障领域实施条例》**，强制性清真认证将按照不同产品类别分阶段实施。 自 2026年10月18日 起进入**强制清真认证（Mandatory Halal）**阶段的产品包括： 对于使用伊斯兰教法所禁止（haram）材料制成的产品，则适用不同规定。 此类产品可以免于取得清真认证，但必须按照适用法规的要求，明确标示其非清真（Non-Halal）信息。 商标、BPOM 与清真认证：不要混淆 简单来说，三者可以这样区分： 同一种产品可能同时需要三者。 例如，化妆品使用的商标需要获得法律保护；产品上市前需要取得 BPOM 相关许可；同时，该产品也可能属于强制清真认证范围。 反之，有些商品虽然并不属于必须办理 BPOM 许可或清真认证的类别，但其商标仍然非常有必要获得法律保护。 归根结底，商标注册应当优先进行。 这并不是因为商标注册证可以取代 BPOM 许可或清真认证，而是因为商标是产品的核心商业标识，并将在之后的产品销售及各种商业活动中持续使用。 因此，企业较为理想的顺序是： 进行商标检索 → 提交商标注册申请 → 根据产品类别办理 BPOM 和/或清真认证相关手续。 随着印度尼西亚即将在 2026年10月 进入下一阶段的强制清真认证制度，这一点对于从事食品和饮料、化妆品、保健品、天然药物及天然健康产品、准药品、化学产品、转基因产品、屠宰产品及屠宰服务，以及特定消费用品的企业而言尤其重要。 不要等到产品已经准备上市、各项监管许可也已经办理完成之后，才发现作为产品核心身份的商标却仍未受到法律保护。 如需进一步了解印度尼西亚及其他国家/地区的商标注册、BPOM 许可及清真认证相关服务，欢迎通过以下渠道联系我们，并获得免费的15分钟咨询： 📩 电子邮件：[email protected] 📳 电话预约：+62 21 83793812 💬 WeChat：@AFFAIPR 关于 AFFA： AFFA 知识产权事务所成立于1999年，是一家总部位于印度尼西亚的精品知识产权律师事务所，专注为国际品牌与创新者提供全方位服务，包括申请注册、许可授权、执法维权及商业化支持，助力客户在印尼不断发展的知识产权环境中稳健发展。 本所因卓越表现广受认可，荣获 Asia Business Law Journal 颁发的“2025年度印度尼西亚最佳精品律师事务所”及“知识产权执法事务所”称号，并入选 WTR 1000 “2024年度推荐事务所（印度尼西亚）”。
Trademark Certificate or Halal Certificate? Which One Should You Apply for First?
Your brand is ready, and your product is about to launch, but which should you handle first: Trademark registration, BPOM approval, or Halal Certification? Each serves a different purpose and follows different requirements. However, from a business protection perspective, Trademark registration should ideally come first, followed by compliance with the requirements of Indonesia’s Food and Drug Authority (Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan – BPOM) and Halal Certification, where applicable to the product. Why Should Trademark Registration Come First? Indonesia applies the first-to-file principle. Under Article 3 of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications, rights to a Trademark are acquired after the Trademark has been registered. This means that using a name on a product, obtaining marketing authorization, or even securing a Halal Certificate does not automatically grant you rights to that Trademark. Without a registered Trademark, the risks can be significant. Imagine a company that has already invested in production, packaging, marketing, BPOM approval, and Halal Certification, only to discover that the Trademark it uses is already owned by another party. The company could face legal action and may ultimately have to change its product name, packaging, promotional materials, and other business documents bearing that identity. For this reason, Trademark searches and registration should ideally be carried out at an early stage of product development. When Is BPOM Approval Required? BPOM approval and Trademark registration fall under different regulatory regimes. A Trademark protects a product’s brand identity, while BPOM regulates the safety, quality, benefits, labeling, and distribution of certain products. In general, products regulated by BPOM include: However, this does not mean that every food product must obtain a BPOM registration number. Certain foods may be exempt from BPOM registration requirements, such as products with a shelf life of less than seven days, ready-to-eat foods, foods used as raw materials and not sold directly to end consumers, and certain products eligible for the Home Industry Processed Food Production Commitment Fulfillment Certificate (SPP-IRT) scheme. Trademark-related requirements may also differ depending on the product category. Therefore, a Trademark Certificate is not always a prerequisite for BPOM registration. Nevertheless, the product name or Trademark remains an important part of the product identity submitted for registration and displayed on its label. What About Halal Certification? Halal Certification requirements do not apply to every product traded in Indonesia. Under Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Implementation of Halal Product Assurance, mandatory Halal Certification is being implemented in stages according to product category. Products covered by the Mandatory Halal phase effective October 18, 2026 include: Different rules apply to products made from prohibited (haram) materials. Such products are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Halal Certificate but must carry non-halal information or labeling in accordance with the applicable regulations. Trademark, BPOM, and Halal: Know the Difference Put simply: A single product may require all three. For example, a cosmetic product may use a Trademark that needs legal protection, require BPOM authorization before it can be marketed, and fall within a category subject to mandatory Halal Certification. Conversely, a product may still require Trademark protection even though it is not subject to either BPOM authorization or Halal Certification. Ultimately, Trademark registration should come first. This is not because a Trademark Certificate replaces BPOM approval or a Halal Certificate, but because the Trademark is the identity that will be attached to the product and used throughout its subsequent commercial activities. Ideally, businesses should conduct a Trademark search, file the Trademark application, and then proceed with the applicable BPOM and/or halal requirements according to the product category. This is becoming increasingly important as Indonesia approaches the next phase of mandatory Halal Certification in October 2026, particularly for businesses operating in food and beverages, cosmetics, health supplements, traditional medicines and natural health products, quasi-drugs, chemical and genetically engineered products, slaughtered products and slaughtering services, and certain consumer goods. Do not wait until your product is ready for the market and all regulatory approvals have been secured, only to discover that the Trademark at the heart of your product identity remains unprotected. Should you need further information on Trademark registration, BPOM approval, and Halal Certification in Indonesia and overseas, contact us through any of the channels below and get a FREE 15-minute consultation: 📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📳 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889 About AFFA: Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support—from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization—in Indonesia’s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including “Best Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia” and “IP Enforcement Firm” at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal, as well as being listed as a “Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia” by WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals.
印度尼西亚商标权转让程序
尽管商标权可以每10年续展一次，但商标的所有权并不一定始终属于同一主体。在企业经营过程中，商标权可能因公司或资产买卖、赠与、继承、企业重组等原因，从一方转让给另一方。 然而，仅有买卖协议或转让协议并不足够。商标所有权的转让需要特定的法律文件，该文件不仅应明确原商标权利人与新商标权利人之间的权利转移，而且相关转让证明还需要向印度尼西亚知识产权总局（Directorate General of Intellectual Property，DGIP）办理备案。 那么，为了使商标所有权的变更正式记录在印度尼西亚的商标数据库中，需要准备哪些材料？具体程序又是怎样的？本文将为您提供完整指南。 什么是商标权转让？ 商标权转让，是指商标的所有权从原权利人转移至另一方。商标权转让需要与商标许可（Trademark License）加以区分。 在商标许可的情况下，商标所有权原则上仍属于商标权利人，仅根据许可协议授予另一方使用该商标的权利。而在商标权转让中，商标的所有权本身将转移至受让方（Assignee）。 因此，对于从其他主体取得商标的企业而言，办理商标所有权变更备案，是确保商标行政记录及权利人信息与实际权属情况保持一致的重要环节。 办理商标权转让所需文件 申请商标权转让备案时，需要准备以下文件： 上述文件准备完成后，将由知识产权顾问通过印度尼西亚知识产权总局（DGIP）的商标系统办理商标权转让备案申请。 尚处于申请阶段的商标也可以转让吗？ 可以。即使商标仍处于申请审查阶段，尚未取得商标注册证书，也可以进行权利转让。办理转让备案时，可以提供相关的 “商标申请号（Application Number）” 以及商标申请证明。 这一点对于正在进行公司收购、企业集团重组或知识产权组合（IP Portfolio）转让的企业尤其重要，因为相关交易可能同时涉及大量处于不同注册阶段的商标。 为什么商标权转让必须办理备案？ 一个可能带来较大风险的错误认识是：只要买卖协议或商标权转让文件已经签署，商标所有权的转移在行政层面就自动完成。实际上，企业还需要确保商标所有权的变更向印度尼西亚知识产权总局（DGIP）办理正式备案。 当商标属于公司收购、资产转让、企业集团重组、投资或其他商业交易的一部分时，这一点尤其重要。例如，一家公司收购另一项业务及其全部知识产权资产时，应确保交易涉及的每一件商标均已被正确识别，并妥善完成相应的商标权转让备案程序。 不要让类似 Rolls-Royce（劳斯莱斯）商标的案例再次发生——大众汽车（VW）虽然完成了相关公司的收购，却未能因此取得 Rolls-Royce 商标的所有权。 进行商业交易时，务必审查商标组合 商标权转让表面上看似简单，但在实际操作中，可能涉及对多个商标注册号、申请状态、权利人身份、转让文件，以及交易文件与印度尼西亚知识产权总局（DGIP）数据库之间的信息一致性进行全面核查。尤其当一项交易涉及数十件甚至数百件商标时，在办理转让备案之前对整个 商标组合（Trademark Portfolio） 进行审查就显得更加重要。 作为专业的知识产权顾问，AFFA可以协助商标权利人、企业、投资者以及商标受让方审查商标组合、准备所需文件，并向印度尼西亚知识产权总局（DGIP）提交商标权转让备案申请，同时提供高度透明的服务收费方案。 通过正确办理备案，商标所有权的变更不仅体现在相关交易文件中，也能够正式、准确地反映在印度尼西亚知识产权行政管理系统中。 如需进一步了解印度尼西亚及其他国家和地区的商标权转让备案事宜，请通过以下渠道直接联系我们，即可获得15分钟免费咨询： 📩 电子邮件：[email protected] 📳 电话预约：+62 21 83793812 💬 WeChat：@AFFAIPR 关于 AFFA： AFFA 知识产权事务所成立于1999年，是一家总部位于印度尼西亚的精品知识产权律师事务所，专注为国际品牌与创新者提供全方位服务，包括申请注册、许可授权、执法维权及商业化支持，助力客户在印尼不断发展的知识产权环境中稳健发展。 本所因卓越表现广受认可，荣获 Asia Business Law Journal 颁发的“2025年度印度尼西亚最佳精品律师事务所”及“知识产权执法事务所”称号，并入选 WTR 1000 “2024年度推荐事务所（印度尼西亚）”。
Trademark Assignment Procedures in Indonesia
Although Trademark rights can be renewed every 10 years, ownership does not necessarily remain with the same party indefinitely. In the course of business, Trademark rights may be transferred from one party to another, for example through the sale of a company or its assets, a gift, inheritance, or corporate restructuring. However, a sale and purchase agreement alone is not sufficient. Trademark ownership requires specific documentation that not only confirms the transfer between the previous owner and the new owner, but also serves as evidence of the assignment that must be recorded with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). So, what needs to be prepared to ensure that a change of ownership is officially recorded in Indonesia’s Trademark database, and what is the procedure? Read on for a complete guide. What Is a Trademark Assignment? A Trademark assignment is the transfer of ownership rights in a Trademark from its previous owner to another party. This should be distinguished from a Trademark license. Under a license, ownership of the Trademark generally remains with the Trademark owner, while another party is granted the right to use the Trademark pursuant to a licensing agreement. In an assignment, however, ownership of the Trademark itself is transferred to the assignee. Therefore, when a company acquires a Trademark from another party, recording the change of ownership is an important step to ensure that the administrative records and Trademark ownership data accurately reflect the actual ownership. Documents Required for a Trademark Assignment To apply for the recordal of a Trademark assignment, you will need to prepare the following documents: Once these documents have been prepared, the IP Consultant will handle the application for recordal of the assignment through the DGIP Trademark system. Can a Pending Trademark Application Also Be Assigned? Yes. A Trademark that is still pending and has not yet obtained a registration certificate can also be assigned. The recordal application can be filed by providing the relevant “Application Number” and evidence of the Trademark application. This is particularly important for companies undergoing acquisitions, corporate group restructuring, or intellectual property portfolio transfers involving multiple Trademarks with different registration statuses. Why Does a Trademark Assignment Need to Be Recorded? One potentially costly mistake is assuming that once a sale and purchase agreement or assignment document has been signed, the transfer of Trademark ownership is automatically complete from an administrative perspective. Companies must also ensure that the change of ownership is properly recorded with the DGIP. This is particularly important when Trademarks form part of business transactions such as corporate acquisitions, asset transfers, corporate group restructurings, investments, and other commercial transactions. For example, when a company acquires a business together with all of its intellectual property assets, it must ensure that every Trademark included in the transaction has been properly identified and that the recordal of each assignment is correctly handled. Do not let history repeat itself, as in the case of Rolls-Royce, where VW failed to acquire ownership of the Rolls-Royce Trademark despite acquiring the company. Make Sure the Trademark Portfolio Is Reviewed as Part of a Business Transaction A Trademark assignment may appear straightforward, but in practice it can involve reviewing numerous registration numbers, application statuses, owner identities, assignment documents, and the consistency of information between transaction documents and the DGIP database. This becomes even more important when a transaction involves dozens or even hundreds of Trademarks, making a comprehensive portfolio review prior to recording the assignments essential. As an Intellectual Property Consultant, AFFA can assist Trademark owners, companies, investors, and assignees in reviewing Trademark portfolios, preparing the necessary documents, and filing applications for the recordal of Trademark assignments with the DGIP, under a highly transparent fee structure. With proper recordal, a change in Trademark ownership is not merely documented in the underlying transaction documents—it is also properly reflected in Indonesia’s intellectual property administration system. Should you need further information regarding the recordal of Trademark assignments in Indonesia and other jurisdictions, contact us directly through the channels below and receive a FREE 15-minute consultation: 📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📳 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889 About AFFA: Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support—from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization—in Indonesia’s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including “Best Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia” and “IP Enforcement Firm” at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal, as well as being listed as a “Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia” by WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals.
印度尼西亚—中国专利审查高速路（PPH）：加快印度尼西亚专利审查的新途径
希望同时在中国和印度尼西亚获得专利保护的申请人，现在可以利用印度尼西亚知识产权总局（Directorate General of Intellectual Property，DGIP）与中国国家知识产权局（China National Intellectual Property Administration，CNIPA）之间实施的专利审查高速路（Patent Prosecution Highway，PPH）试点项目。 根据该项目，符合条件的申请人可以利用CNIPA作出的审查结果，请求DGIP对相应的印度尼西亚专利申请进行加快审查。 什么是DGIP–CNIPA专利审查高速路（PPH）？ PPH机制允许参与合作的专利局利用另一专利局已经完成的审查工作。 在DGIP–CNIPA PPH框架下，如果与印度尼西亚专利申请相对应的CNIPA申请中，已有权利要求被CNIPA认定为具有可专利性或可授权性（patentable or allowable），申请人即可向DGIP提出加快审查请求。 值得注意的是，相关中国专利申请并不一定需要先获得授权。如果CNIPA审查员在最新的相关审查意见中明确认定某项权利要求具有可专利性或可授权性，该权利要求即可被视为符合相关条件。 因此，对于希望在印度尼西亚获得专利保护的中国企业而言，该机制具有重要的实际意义。 主要申请条件是什么？ 申请DGIP–CNIPA PPH需要满足若干条件。 其中，用于提出PPH请求的DGIP申请与CNIPA申请通常必须具有相同的最早日期，该日期可以是优先权日或申请日。相关指南涵盖多种申请路径，包括《巴黎公约》途径和PCT途径。 至少一件对应的CNIPA申请必须包含一项或多项被CNIPA认定为具有可专利性或可授权性的权利要求。 此外，在印度尼西亚接受审查的权利要求必须与CNIPA认定可授权的权利要求**“充分对应”（sufficiently correspond）**。一般而言，这意味着印度尼西亚申请中的权利要求应与相应中国申请中的权利要求具有相同或相似的保护范围，或者其保护范围更窄。如果加入完全不同类别的权利要求，则可能无法满足该项要求。 提出请求的时间也非常关键。 PPH请求必须在DGIP开始审查该申请之前提出。印度尼西亚专利申请还必须已经进入实质审查阶段，但相关指南允许申请人在提出实质审查请求的同时提交PPH请求。 需要提交哪些文件？ 申请人通常需要提交： CNIPA审查意见及可授权权利要求的译文可以使用印度尼西亚语或英语提交。如果DGIP能够通过CNIPA的案卷访问系统获取某些文件，则申请人无需重复提交这些文件。 其中，权利要求对应表尤其重要。如果印度尼西亚申请中的权利要求是中国申请相应权利要求的直接翻译，申请人可以简单说明两者相同。否则，则必须逐项说明各项权利要求之间的对应关系。 PCT申请也可以利用PPH机制 DGIP与CNIPA之间的合作还包括利用CNIPA出具的PCT国际阶段工作成果提出的PCT-PPH请求。 在此路径下，最新的相关国际阶段工作成果，例如国际检索单位书面意见（WO/ISA）、国际初步审查单位书面意见（WO/IPEA）或国际初步审查报告（IPER），必须表明至少一项权利要求在新颖性、创造性和工业实用性方面具有可专利性或可授权性。 仅凭**国际检索报告（International Search Report，ISR）**本身，不能作为提出PCT-PPH请求的依据。 为什么这对中国专利申请人很重要？ 对于正在拓展印度尼西亚市场的中国创新企业而言，DGIP–CNIPA PPH提供了一项具有战略价值的途径，使申请人能够利用在中国取得的有利审查结果，进一步申请加快其印度尼西亚专利的审查程序。 但是，符合PPH条件并非自动获得。申请人在提交请求前，需要仔细审查优先权关系、权利要求的对应性、程序时间要求以及相关支持文件。 对于在中国拥有重要技术和专利组合的企业而言，如果能够在早期阶段将印度尼西亚专利申请策略与PPH策略进行统筹规划，将有助于建立一条更加高效的专利保护路径，从而在东南亚最大的市场之一——印度尼西亚更快地推进专利权的取得。 如果您希望进一步了解印度尼西亚—中国专利审查高速路（PPH），欢迎通过以下渠道联系我们，并获得免费的15分钟咨询服务： 📩 电子邮件：[email protected] 📳 电话预约：+62 21 83793812 💬 WeChat：@AFFAIPR 关于 AFFA： AFFA 知识产权事务所成立于1999年，是一家总部位于印度尼西亚的精品知识产权律师事务所，专注为国际品牌与创新者提供全方位服务，包括申请注册、许可授权、执法维权及商业化支持，助力客户在印尼不断发展的知识产权环境中稳健发展。 本所因卓越表现广受认可，荣获 Asia Business Law Journal 颁发的“2025年度印度尼西亚最佳精品律师事务所”及“知识产权执法事务所”称号，并入选 WTR 1000 “2024年度推荐事务所（印度尼西亚）”。
Indonesia–China Patent Prosecution Highway: A Faster Route for Patent Examination in Indonesia
Patent applicants seeking protection in both China and Indonesia may now benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Program between Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). Under the program, eligible applicants can request accelerated examination of an Indonesian Patent application by relying on examination results produced by CNIPA. What Is the DGIP–CNIPA PPH? The PPH allows participating patent offices to make use of examination work already performed by another office. In the DGIP–CNIPA framework, an applicant may request accelerated examination before DGIP where a corresponding CNIPA application has claims that CNIPA has determined to be patentable or allowable. Importantly, the Chinese patent does not necessarily have to be granted first. A claim is regarded as patentable or allowable when the CNIPA examiner has clearly identified it as such in the latest relevant office action. This mechanism can therefore be particularly relevant to Chinese companies seeking patent protection in Indonesia. What Are the Main Requirements? Several conditions must be satisfied. Among others, the DGIP application and the CNIPA application serving as the basis for the PPH request must generally share the same earliest date, whether through a priority date or filing date. The guidelines accommodate several filing structures, including Paris Convention and PCT routes. At least one corresponding CNIPA application must contain one or more claims determined by CNIPA to be patentable or allowable. Furthermore, the claims submitted for examination in Indonesia must “sufficiently correspond” to the allowable CNIPA claims. This generally means that the Indonesian claims have the same or similar scope, or are narrower than the corresponding Chinese claims. Introducing an entirely different claim category may not satisfy this requirement. Timing is also critical. The PPH request must be filed before DGIP has begun examination of the application. The Indonesian application must also have entered the substantive examination stage, although the guidelines allow a PPH request to be filed simultaneously with the request for substantive examination. What Documents Are Required? Applicants generally need to submit: Translations of CNIPA office actions and allowable claims may be submitted in Indonesian or English. Certain documents do not need to be resubmitted where they are accessible to DGIP through CNIPA’s dossier access system. The claim correspondence table is particularly important. Where the Indonesian claims are literal translations, the applicant may simply state that they are the same. Otherwise, the correspondence of each claim must be explained. PCT Applications Can Also Benefit The cooperation also covers a PCT-PPH route using PCT international work products produced by CNIPA. For this route, the latest relevant international work product—such as a WO/ISA, WO/IPEA or IPER—must indicate at least one claim as patentable or allowable in terms of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. An International Search Report (ISR) alone cannot serve as the basis for a PCT-PPH request. Why Does This Matter for Chinese Patent Applicants? For Chinese innovators expanding into Indonesia, the DGIP–CNIPA PPH provides a strategic opportunity to leverage favorable examination results obtained in China to pursue accelerated examination in Indonesia. However, PPH eligibility is not automatic. Priority relationships, claim correspondence, procedural timing and supporting documents must be carefully reviewed before filing. For companies with valuable technologies and patent portfolios in China, planning the Indonesian filing and PPH strategy together can help create a more efficient route toward patent protection in one of Southeast Asia’s largest markets. Should you need further information regarding the PPH Indonesia-China, please contact us through the following channels and receive a FREE 15-minute consultation: 📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📳 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889 About AFFA: Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support—from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization—in Indonesia’s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including “Best Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia” and “IP Enforcement Firm” at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal, as well as being listed as a “Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia” by WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals.
